Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sarvesh Rai vs General Manager M.P. Rural Roads ... on 29 March, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 29 th OF MARCH, 2023
CIVIL REVISION No. 205 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SARVESH RAI S/O LATE SHRI BRAHMMDEV NARAYAN
RAI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
151 C DAYANAND MARG, ALLHABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI DILIP KUMAR SAXENA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER)
AND
1. GENERAL MANAGER M.P. RURAL ROADS
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KARYALAY ISTHIT
1 / 3 ALKHANANDA NAGAR, COLONY BIDLA
ASPATLAL KE PASS. DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MUKHYA KARYAPALAN ADHIKARI MADHYA
PRADESH RURAL ROADS RURAL ROADS
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2ND FLOOR
VINDHYANCHAL BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI NITIN SINGH BHATI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.2)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The applicant has filed this revision under Section 115 of CPC
challenging the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the learned VIII Additional
District Judge, District Ujjain in MJC No.21/2019.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 01-04-2023
17:31:53
The facts of the case in short are as under:-
This applicant raised an arbitration dispute with respondent in which an
award dated 01.06.2005 was passed in his favour. The respondent challenged
the aforesaid award by way of an application under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The
learned III Additional District Judge, Ujjain vide order dated 24.04.2006 allowed
the application under Section 34 of the Act and the award was set aside. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order M.A.No.2673/2006 was filed before this Court
which was dismissed vide order dated 17.08.2011. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid two orders, the present applicant approached the Hon'ble Apex Court
by way of SLP No.2616/2018. Vide order dated 08.03.2018 the aforesaid SLP
was allowed and the order passed by the Additional District Judge as well as the
High Court have been set aside and the award was restored. However, it has
been made clear that this order will not debar the proceedings under Section 34
of the Act. After passing of the aforesaid order, the respondent no.1 filed an
application before the learned III Additional District Judge in respect of the
proceedings of Miscellaneous Civil Case 67/2005( filed under Section 34 of the
Act against the award dated 01.06.2005).
The present applicant opposed the aforesaid application by filing a reply
that in compliance of the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court, respondent no.1
ought to have filed a fresh application under Section 34 of the Act and since the
same has become time barred, therefore, the earlier proceedings cannot be
restored. Vide order dated 08.12.2022, the learned Additional District Judge has
rejected the contention of the applicant and revived the proceedings initiated
under Section 34 of the Act. Hence, the present revision before this Court.
Signature Not Verified
I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at length and perused
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 01-04-2023
17:31:53
the record.
The order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A.No.2616/2018 filed
by the present applicant is reproduced as under:-
"C.A. No.2616 @ SLP(C) No. 35641/2011:
Leave granted.
In view of order passed in C.A. No.2751 of 2018 @ SLP(C)
No.16615/2012, no objection having been raised by the
respondents in terms of Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 at appropriate stage within the time
stipulated, the award could not have been annulled.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment
is set aside and the award is restored.
It is, however make it clear that this order will not debar
proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996."
It is clear from the aforesaid order that the Apex Court has not granted
liberty to the respondent no.1 to file fresh application under Section 34 of the
Act and simply observed that this order will not debar the proceedings under
Section 34 of the Act. The Apex Court has set aside the order passed in MJC
No.67/2005 as well as the order passed by this Court and restored the award in
favour of the present applicant. The right to challenge the said award on merit is
still available with the respondent, therefore, the Apex Court has observed that
this order will not debar the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. Earlier
MJC was allowed on technical ground that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to
entertain the dispute in respect of the works contract and the same view has
been upheld by this Court, but the Apex Court has held that once the objection
under Section 16(2) of the Act was not raised at appropriate stage, the award
could not be annulled therefore, the award was not set aside on merit and the
proceedings under Section 34 of the Act was restored by the Apex Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 01-04-2023
17:31:53
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order
dated 08.12.2022. The application under Section 34 of the Act is liable to be
decided on merit. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly restored the
proceedings of MJC No.67/2005.
Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
RJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 01-04-2023
17:31:53
